Daily Archives: December, 10, 2012

In case you missed Rush, today – he was on a roll. I managed to find a station while I was on the road today, and heard this monologue in the car, (after searching for what seemed an eternity for a talk station.)

As you can imagine, my ears perked up when I heard this – I know it’s what a lot of us are feeling in our guts, and we feel powerless to stop it:

“Obama is at max damage potential right now”, Rush asserted, “he can inflict the maximum damage possible for the purpose of transforming the country from capitalism to….Western European Socialism. He’s got two years to double down, triple down, max out on it. And that’s if he cares about the 2014 mid terms, but if you listen to the Democrats talk, they don’t care about that…”

“If you have an ounce of compassion this Christmas season, save it for John Boehner and the House Republicans,” Hume said. “President Obama is treating them as if he has them over a barrel headed for the fiscal cliff — and he does. This is not because Mr. Obama won re-election. After all, he won 51 percent, and needed the greatest voter mobilization operation in history to do it.”

“His leverage now stems from the law, which ends the Bush tax rates on January 1, imposing new higher tax rate and a steep set of spending cuts that fall with special force on military,” Hume explained. “Nobody wants these things, but Republicans, the low tax and strong defense party, want them least of all. Not only that, but polls indicate that if these things come to pass, the public by large margin will blame the GOP.”

Since Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office in January 2009 he has created on average 101 new federal employees each day.Andrew Malcolm at Investor’s Business Daily reported:

You may have noticed some economic difficulties across the country in recent years among family, friends, neighbors, colleagues. One sector is doing quite nicely, however, under Barack Hussein Obama.

In the 1,420 days since he took the oath of office, the federal government has daily hired on average 101 new employees. Every day. Seven days a week. All 202 weeks. That makes 143,000 more federal workers than when Obama talked forever on that cold day in January of 2009.

Jaw-dropping lie alert: Obama tells workers right-to-work laws “take away your rights to bargain for better wages,” in reality it stops workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Nothing in those laws relates to collective bargaining. So he’s either grossly misinformed or lying his ass off.

In the Obama playbook, “segmenting the market” essentially meant “community organizing.” Although modern liberal philosophy is grounded in collectivism, progressives effectively mass their troops using division and agitation. The trick is maintaining voluntary cohesion and support, in a failing economy or security threats or disasters, among the various personalities in the parlor. (For example, imagine a dinner-party-scene where the Obama-phone lady was suddenly aware that Obama-money had run out, and she was seated next to Will Smith when he just heard he would be hit with a 75% tax rate.) But camaraderie is never the ultimate goal of the host and his fellow bureaucrats at their utopian party anyway — their intent is to create and forcefully implement one-size-fits-all collectivist policies for their guests.

Divisive conversation on “Fairness” and motivational phrases such as “We can’t wait,” “Vote for revenge,” “You didn’t build that,” and “Punish your enemies” were addressed to those in the parlor whom the campaign already knew would answer “I do” to the question, “Who goes Obama?” A helpful mainstream media provided the venue, orchestrated the background music, and perfectly coordinated entertaining distractions.

However, there’s much more at stake in political parlor games than simply formulating targeted marketing strategies. Ms. Thompson endeavored to ask not just who, but beyond and to the more important question: Why? What was it that made some people, at a deeper level, more susceptible to the allure of such an ideology? She answered:

Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

Thompson explained her conclusion further:

Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work — a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.

Those chilling words were written decades ago, yet they seem to describe much of today’s society. For a real jolt, reread Thompson’s article, replacing Nazi wherever it appears with “Obama-supporter.” Besides being a very politically incorrect exercise, the uncomfortable parallels are inescapable: both statist ideologies, besides being led by riveting personalities, seem to appeal to childish minds — many of them highly educated — whose souls have been neglected.

A new report suggests the United States will no longer be the sole world superpower by 2030.
Isn’t this what the left always wanted?The Politico reported:

A new report by the intelligence community projects that the United States will no longer be the world’s only superpower by 2030.

“In terms of the indices of overall power – GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment – Asia will surpass North America and Europe combined,” the report concludes.

“Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds” — prepared by the office of the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — projects that the “unipolar” world that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union will not continue.

When one strictly adheres to the principles of Saul Alinsky, you don’t negotiate, you intimidate. You don’t take a stand, but make the other guy take a stand and then you demonize it. You create so much static with class warfare rhetoric that it drowns out reason and fact. A good case in point is the President’s insistence that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. He has been saying this for so long, it is almost an accepted fact by some. The real truth is that the top one percent of wage earners have gone from paying 20% of the total tax burden in the 1980s to 40% today. The percentage of the total income they earn is around 25%. If one extrapolates out the tax burden to include the top 10% of wage earners, the total share of the tax burden paid by that group is 70%. Their total percentage of the income earned is around 38%. These facts come straight from current IRS data.

No fair-minded person could conclude from the empirical evidence laid out in the previous paragraph, that the wealthy in this country are not paying their fair share. And yet, the President spews out this categorically false narrative and a certain percentage of the population laps it up like kittens lapping milk from a bowl. This is also what followers of Saul Alinsky practice, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth in the minds of the masses.

The Alinsky President wouldn’t have gotten away it without his enablers in the Democrat party and the MSM (but I repeat myself) – it seems that the entire Democrat party have become students of Saul Alinsky – and they’re playing games rather than tell the American people the truth.

A friend from Chicago, involved in Illinois politics who has known Obama since his early days in the Illinois State Senate, told me that two things that trump everything else in Obama’s mind: redistributing the wealth and empowering labor unions. Look at everything the President does, my friend says, and you will find one or the other lurking in the background.

My friend’s analysis may explain a lot about the current state of affairs concerning the standoff over the so-called fiscal cliff and Obama’s refusal to abandon the idea that he must raise taxes on the rich. The President and his henchmen certainly understand that raising taxes on the richest 2% of taxpayers (in reality these people are not the richest but those with the highest incomes) makes little economic sense – doing so would reduce the deficit for 2012 from $1.10 trillion to $1.02 trillion or, in these numbers, really not at all. So something else is going on.

There is no question that there is plenty of politics going on, for one thing. Obama didn’t learn how to play politics in Chicago for nothing, and he didn’t come out of his second successful presidential campaign without realizing how to hoodwink the voters while putting Republicans over a barrel. As squishy Republicans begin to agree with him that maybe, just maybe, we could raise taxes just a little bit Obama understands that if he wins on this one, he’ll be able to push Congressional Republicans around for the rest of the Congress.

A top Michigan Democratic lawmaker urged President Obama to withhold federal funds for major state infrastructure projects in order to force Republican Governor Rick Snyder to veto the state’s controversial right-to-work bill.

Obama is travelling to Michigan Monday to deliver a speech on the budget at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Redford, Michigan. The White House announced Obama’s visit last Thursday, the same day it released a statement opposing the Michigan right-to-work bill, which has passed both houses of the state legislature and which Snyder is expected to sign into law Tuesday.

The bill would free workers from requirements to pay dues to unions they do not belong to. The bill, which critics call a union-busting measure, would make Michigan the twenty-fourth “right-to-work” state.

Insiders believe Obama will address the right-to-work issue in his speech Monday, presumably as a ceremonial gesture for the auto unions that provided funding for his re-election campaign.

Sen. Tom Coburn is demanding that Democrats stop “playing the game” and cease lying to the American people about the proposed tax increase being the only solution to the fiscal cliff problem.

“As long as we continue to lie to the American people — that you can solve this problem without adjusting and working on [entitlement] programs — it is dishonest and beneath anybody in Washington,” he said on Sunday.

During the roundtable, Coburn said he would be open to a tax increase if entitlement programs were also part of the deal. He said significant reform for those programs is necessary and cutting back on cost is the main way to do that. He called the President’s suggested tax increase a solution to only 7 percent of the problem, but said Congress needs to focus on the other 93 percent.

“What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we’re not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it,” he said.

But never fear, a solution to all of our debt problems has been found…

With American set to hit the debt ceiling again thanks to out-of-control government spending, the Washington Post has suggested a solution for President Obama: mint two platinum coins valued at $1 trillion each. What would this do? According to the Post:

Thanks to an odd loophole in current law, the U.S. Treasury is technically allowed to mint as many coins made of platinum as it wants and can assign them whatever value it pleases.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would produce (say) a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve. The Fed then moves this money into Treasury’s accounts. And just like that, Treasury suddenly has an extra $2 trillion to pay off its obligations for the next two years — without needing to issue new debt. The ceiling is no longer an issue.

Wouldn’t those have to be really huge coins?

Ben Shapiro of Big Journalism notes that WaPofloated this idea shortly after meeting with Obama at the White House, along with MSNBC hosts and members of Daily Kos.

Chris Hayes: We’re talking about the massive, extractive energy boom happening in America right now and how it’s transforming our politics and how that can be made to work with a sane climate policy, which is really the difficult question. Before the break I left the question on the table about the price of energy being too low right now. Basically we see this massive amount of supply has come onto the grid thanks largely to natural gas. The price has come down, and I think we generally think, “Oh, lower prices are better.” But it seems to me there’s a lot of problematic stuff about the price coming down sharply as it is right now in terms of incentives for efficiency and et cetera.

Dan Dicker:You would want the prices to go up a lot because it would drive the next stage towards renewables, and make that at least cost-effective. Algae fuel, we talk a lot about that…

C.H.: Some people talk about that.

D.D.: Yeah. The cost is about eight and a half to nine dollars a gallon compared to gasoline as it is now. You want the prices to go up to make these a little more cost effective. Drive the technology into them. Unfortunately it’s actually going quite the opposite. You talk about increased supply here in the United States. In fact, overseas demand is dropping. We are still in the midst of an economic problem in Europe. Chinese growth is going down. Indian growth seems to be going down. In this country we’ve done better in terms of efficiencies and our demands are starting to drop, so in terms of what economically you can expect, you will expect the opposite, or at least I do over the next several years, that oil prices will in fact go lower. Natural gas you can – because we have a futures market, we look forward to the future and see what people are betting the price is going to be. That doesn’t go over 5$ an MCF until 2020 according to the futures markets. So although you might want… we have to drive the renewable argument some other way, because price doesn’t look like it’s going to do it.

Frances Beinecke: Look, the only thing that’s going to change that is if we finally put a price on carbon.

C.H.: Right.

F.B.: The externals of all the fossil fuel development are not incorporated in the current price, so the environmental effects, the health effects, the consequences to communities, none of that is factored in. We have to change that, get a price on carbon, drive it up so we can promote renewables and efficiencies first and foremost.

Granted, these are the guests on the show talking here, but the nodding of heads around the table and the continued discussion demonstrates the unanimous attitude of the panel, including the host. So why would I make you sit through this? Because it’s important. And it’s important because it’s real, and we wind up having to be out there fighting against this tide every single day.

The Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero that opened with great fanfare a year ago is now an empty space with no community programs.

And while the developers behind Park51 insisted for two years that the project was more than a mosque, it now appears to be just that. Dozens of worshipers gather at the site on Park Place Friday for prayer services — but that’s the only activity in the building.

As Egypt under the heel of Mohamed Morsi unravels, here’s the late-breaking news: The Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of democracy.

This has always been obvious to anyone who took the time to look into it. Nevertheless, it has not been an easy point to make lo these many years. Even as the Justice Department proved beyond any doubt in court that the Brotherhood’s major goal in America and Europe — its self-professed “grand jihad” — is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization,” to have the temerity to point this out is to be smeared as an “Islamophobe.” That’s the Islamophilic Left’s code for “racist.”

Nor is it just the Left. Like the transnational progressives who hold sway in Democratic circles, many of the neoconservative thinkers who have captured Republican foreign-policy making encourage “outreach” to “moderate Islamists” — a ludicrously self-contradictory term. The idea is to collaborate in the construction of “Islamic democracies.” That’s another nonsensical term — to borrow Michael Rubin’s quote of a moderate Muslim academic piqued by the encroachments of Turkey’s ruling Islamists, “We are a democracy. Islam has nothing to do with it.” That is clearly right. Yet, to argue the chimerical folly of the sharia-democracy experiment is to be demagogued as an “isolationist.” It is as if the Right can no longer fathom an engaged foreign policy that concentrates solely on vital U.S. interests and treats America’s enemies as, well, enemies.

I have two kids in high school and one in junior high, and though they take their own lunches on most days, I’ve heard stories from their friends about the quantity and quality of the new menu (the biggest complaint being that the new pizza with the whole wheat crust isn’t served with an antiemetic on the side). As it turned out, there was a national backlash over the new lunch menu.

The complaints have reverberated all the way back to Washington, and now the Ag Department is beating a quick retreat:

The Agriculture Department is responding to criticism over new school lunch rules by allowing more grains and meat in kids’ meals.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of Congress in a letter Friday that the department will do away with daily and weekly limits of meats and grains. Several lawmakers wrote the department after the new rules went into effect in September saying kids aren’t getting enough to eat.

School administrators also complained, saying set maximums on grains and meats are too limiting as they try to plan daily meals.